A Hidden Agenda: Decoding Karhi’s Public Broadcasting Reform

In recent weeks, the debate surrounding the potential closure of the Israel Public Broadcasting Corporation (IPBC) has reached fever pitch. The issue, already fraught with ideological tensions, became the focus of a particularly contentious hearing by the Knesset’s Economy Committee on December 18. This hearing, ostensibly meant to evaluate the progress of the proposed legislation, laid bare the polarized discourse, the silencing of dissent, and the unilateral approach adopted by the Ministry of Communications. The climate of the hearing was toxic, with the public debate spilling into both digital platforms and physical protests. Resistance to the proposed changes was met with hostility – even a parliamentary aide who dared to voice opposition was removed from the proceedings.

Adding to the contentious atmosphere, significant criticism emerged from the European Broadcasting Union (EBU). During the hearing, concerns were raised about Israel potentially losing its participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, a consequence of the proposed legislative changes. Karhi dismissed these concerns with a sarcastic “Oh oh oh,” echoing a derogatory expression associated with Yinon Magal, a pro-government presenter on Channel 14.

Discussion also turned to a critical letter from the EBU addressed to the Ministry of Communications that same morning. The letter criticized the proposed reforms and warned of their potential repercussions. Karhi’s response was to mischaracterize the EBU, calling it the “European Broadcasting Corporation,” an incorrect and misleading statement. Economy Committee Chairman Dudi Amsalem echoed this misinformation, reinforcing claims that were both baseless and absurd. Their dismissive attitude highlighted their lack of familiarity with the broadcasting sector and underscored the concerningly uninformed foundation of these legislative efforts.

During the hearing, attendees were handed a glossy pamphlet that encapsulated the proposed changes to public broadcasting. Its contents, outlined below, betray a lack of substantive engagement with the implications of these decisions and reveal deeper ideological undercurrents driving the initiative:

Outline for changes in public broadcasting:
• No news and current affairs in Hebrew funded by the public: free market.
• Channel 11 (Kan 11) will be dedicated to original productions and Israeli creations only: Alternatively, a dedicated fund will be established to support Israeli creations that will be broadcast on commercial channels.
• Channel Makan 33 will be closed: original productions in Arabic will be part of the same outline of Israeli creations.
• [Kan] Educational [television] will remain.
• The IPBC will have five radio stations: among them – Kan Moreshet, Kan Gimel, and Kan Reka (which will include broadcasts in Amharic, Russian, and Arabic in equal proportions).
• The radio frequencies of Kan Bet and additional frequencies will be offered in a tender to national commercial radio stations.
• The corporation’s archive will be opened to the public. Private and commercial – Only an operating fee will be collected.
• There are no advertisements and no sponsorships in public broadcasting. Public does not compete with private.
• The budget of the corporation or foundation will be about 500 million ILS per year. For Israeli creation and the designated radio stations only.
• The rights of the employees will be preserved: Respectable retirement conditions, similar to the conditions recently given to legal advisors, including priority in civil service.

The Lack of Preparedness and Ideological Undertones

The proposed outline reflects both ideological rigidity and a lack of thorough preparation. Language and formatting inconsistencies hint that the blueprint was hastily assembled, likely under external pressure. Claims that Minister Karhi’s political trajectory has been influenced by media stakeholders, prima facie, add a dimension of intrigue, suggesting privatization as a preordained objective. The proposed auctioning of radio frequencies, for instance, aligns with a broader agenda favoring private over public interests.

The exclusionary tendencies of the plan are especially striking. Priority appears to have been given to Jewish-focused programming, as seen in the prominence of Kan Moreshet over Makan 33, despite the latter’s broader audience and cultural significance. This nationalist bias echoes the Loyalty in Culture law, where cultural funding was weaponized to marginalize Arab society and to cleanse the signs of Palestinian culture. Similar concerns arise regarding the allocation of budgets for Israeli creations, which risk being skewed toward Jewish narratives at the expense of inclusivity.

Contradictions and Ignorance Exposed

The proposed changes also reveal fundamental contradictions in the government’s economic rationale. While public broadcasting is derided for competing with private enterprises, the plan selectively preserves certain public assets—educational television and specific radio stations—without clear justification. Charging fees for the use of archival materials while privatizing other segments creates further inconsistencies. These contradictions mark the lack of a coherent policy framework, leaving questions about the true motivations behind the proposed overhaul.

Adding to the broader picture of incompetence is the dismissive attitude toward international repercussions. The EBU’s letter, marking criticism of the proposed legislation and detailing potential consequences, was a direct warning. However, the ministers’ behavior – misrepresenting the EBU and trivializing its concerns – signals either a lack of understanding or a calculated effort to disregard the broader impact. Such actions risk isolating Israel on the global stage, particularly in cultural and media-related domains.

A Glimpse Behind the Curtain

The events of the hearing, coupled with the language of the pamphlet, provide a window into the intentions driving these reforms. Minister Karhi and his allies appear to be advancing a vision that sidelines dissent and caters to specific ideological and economic interests. The casual dismissal of expert warnings, the exclusion of diverse cultural voices, and the contradictions inherent in the proposal all suggest that the public interest is secondary to private ambitions and nationalist imperatives.

These patterns are consistent with the broader legislative environment, including the controversial ratings bill recently debated. Like the proposed changes to public broadcasting, the ratings bill appears designed to consolidate influence over media narratives, further eroding the space for independent journalism and cultural expression.

Karhi’s manifesto is not merely a policy proposal but a statement of intent – a deliberate reshaping of Israel’s public sphere to reflect a narrow vision. Its implications extend far beyond broadcasting, raising profound questions about the country’s democratic character and cultural pluralism.